Why aren’t we spending more for those planes?

Posted by Marc Hodak on March 1, 2008 under Revealed preference | Read the First Comment

Congress regularly blasts the military for being inefficient. And when the military puts a major contract up for bid, and the best consortium wins, Congress is outraged because the consortium includes a European company.

The troubling thing is that Congressional outrage is generally reported at face value.

“It’s stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America,” said Republican Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon’s decision.

“We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers,” said Republican Representative Todd Tiahrt.

The problem with the way these articles are written, emphasizing the party of the speakers rather than their home states, is that they separate important information across the page, leaving the reader with the impression that where the congressman stood was divorced from where they sat. I think it would have been more instructive to write it like this:

“It’s stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America,” said Kansas Senator Sam Brownback about the Pentagon’s decision. Kansas is where Boeing, the losing bidder, had promised to build the plane if they had won the bid.

“We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers,” said Representative Todd Tiahrt, Representative to the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas, where Boeing would have made the planes.

Then there is no need to pretend that Congress speaks with one voice on this issue by burying this tidbit toward the end of the article.

Alabama Senator Richard Shelby welcomed the decision. “Not only is this the right decision for our military, but it is great news for Alabama,” he said.

By that point, you won’t have to guess where the winning bidders are assembling these planes.